The Supreme Court’s decision to narrow how Jan 6 defendants may be charged with “obstruction of an official proceeding” will likely only impact a small number of convicted rioters.

“The decision will not have tremendous significance in the January 6 cases, including that of former president Trump, because in almost all cases there are other charges that have a felony status alongside the obstruction charge,” said William Banks, a professor at Syracuse University College of Law.

More than 330 January 6 rioters could have their convictions and sentences tossed thanks to a ruling from the Supreme Court on Friday.

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that an “obstruction of an official proceeding” charge brought against Joseph Fischer, a former police officer and rioter, was too broadly used and the government will need to prove that a defendant “impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or other things used in an official proceeding, or attempted to do so.”

The ruling could have massive impacts on Jan 6 defendants such as Fischer, who were convicted of storming the Capitol and destroying property to try and disrupt the certification of the 2020 election.

However, the ruling appears to have little impact on the pending charges against Trump, who is also accused of obstruction in some of his cases.

Ariana Baio reports.

Both the former president and Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith cited court cases involving former president Richard Nixon to make their points for and against Trump’s immunity claim.

The Republican is pointing to the 1982 Supreme Court case Nixon v Fitzgerald to argue that he should be immune from prosecution on federal election interference charges.

Meanwhile, Smith is using the 1974 Supreme Court case United States v Nixon to argue that he should not be.

The Supreme Court spent over three hours on April 25 hearing oral arguments in the historic case involving former president Donald Trump’s claims of presidential immunity from prosecution.

The nine justices questioned lawyers for Trump and the Justice Department’s special counsel and toyed with whether or not presidents should be awarded broad, some, or no immunity from criminal prosecution.

Here’s Ariana Baio with a reminder of the key points to emerge from that hearing.

Here’s Ariana Baio on precisely what it is the judges have been considering ahead of their ruling today.

The Republican presidential contender posted this on his social media platform overnight that commanders-in-chief “lliterally could not function” without knowing they are entirely free to do whatever they like in the Oval Office without fear of legal reprisals, despite all 44 of his predecessors and his successor managing to go about their business just fine.

The former president’s defense has already been shot down by the federal judge overseeing the election interference case brought against him, as well as by a unanimous panel of appeals court judges, the latter writing that Trump’s attempts to stay in power after losing the vote to Joe Biden four years ago represented “an unprecedented assault on the structure of our government.”

The question is now in the hands of the nation’s highest court.

Its answer could have profound consequences for holding former presidents accountable for crimes committed while occupying the White House.

But the court’s decision to take up the case – and to wait until the final day of its current session to issue a ruling – ensures that voters will not see a verdict in the case against Trump for unlawfully conspiring to overturn the last election before they cast their ballots in the next one this November.

Here’s the latest from Alex Woodward.

This was the last we heard from the court on Friday.

Good morning and welcome to The Independent’s live coverage of the US Supreme Court as the nine justices prepare to hand down their long-awaited ruling on Donald Trump’s claim that he should be granted absolute immunity from criminal prosecution over any actions carried out during his tenure in the White House.

The justices heard oral arguments on the matter in late April but have waited until the final day of their legislative term to reveal their ruling, which is expected to have huge consequences for this year’s presidential election between Trump and Joe Biden.